Talk:Bushism/Archive 2

Are many Bushisms really Quayleisms
A lot of the "Bushisms" floating around on the internet actually appear to have originally spoken by Dan Quayle and subsequently misattributed to Bush.

So is there any reliable source which differentiates "Bushisms" from "Quayleisms" and how can we be sure that all the quotes attribured here to Bush really were his words ? 80.229.222.48 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Imports from overseas"
Why is "more of our imports come from overseas" characterised as a Bushism?

Presumably this is considered a stupid remark because all imports come from overseas, but that is a lazy assumption which is not always correct. Would an import into the USA from Canada or Mexico be considered to have come from overseas? If Switzerland imports something from Germany, is that from overseas?

129.230.248.1 12:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Tirailleur


 * The answer, to me, is that this isn't really so funny nor stupid as some folks would make it out to be: as you pointed out, some imports don't come from overseas, so I think it should just be taken out of the article altogether. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * jeez, get a sense of humour!!!! if you heard someone say most imports come from overseas your immediate thought is going to be, um..yeah they do you dope! it is just one of the many things Bush says without thinking, I am sure he could have worded it more accurately, then people would have understood what he was saying from the get-go....but old Dubbaya does'nt have the worlds largest vocab now, does he..?


 * Agreed, this is hardly a Bushism. It's even accurate. Most trade is with Canada, but the majority is shrinking as more and more goods arrive in ports instead of over bridges. 70.65.6.167 05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Imports from Canada are only about 15% of total US merchandise imports. The maximum was never over 25%, so "most trade is with Canada" isn't quite right. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Internets
Why is the "internets" quote not included in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.29.27 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A Few Things
For one, why is the dicussion page longer then the actual article? Two I don't think the "what they mean part" is nessary.

dennis kussinich 08 19:57 11/24/06

Some of us are more assured by linkable signatures,... & are you aware of the impersonation screenname debate? Spelling?

I've noticed that some people are pointing-out that George's comments conflict with those of Bob Gates. But, the {Defense Secretary} nomination could not go to Laura, Tony Snow, Barney_%28dog%29, Miss_Beazley_%28dog%29,...

Conversely, those who complain about his scandals, including myself, need to remember that no one else would accept the job, with Don Rumsfeld's legacy. It does seem that Mr. Gates is unanimous in committee {Armed Services Committee},...

< http://seattlepi.com/national/1110AP_Former_President_Bush.html >;

< http://seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.com/national/1110AP_Former_President_Bush.html >:

"A true measure of a man is how you handle victory and how you handle defeat, so in '94 Floridians chose to rehire the governor. They took note of his worthy [actual audio sounds like 'defeated'] opponent, who showed with not only words but with actions what decency he had,"

George Herbert Walker Bush, Monday, fourth, December.

That quote compares Lawton Mainor Chiles to John Ellis Bush.

Later in that article:

He also talked about his recent friendship with former President Clinton. He recalled a political cartoon showing his son, the president, opposing gay marriage and then walking into a room and finding his father on a sofa with Clinton's arm around him, prompting him to shout, "Dad! What are you doing?"

"(Clinton) cut it out of the paper and said, 'Don't you think we ought to cool it, George?'" Bush said.

Has George, the First, replaced Monica Samille Lewinsky? Is that a Bushism, or, merely, very odd?

Thank You.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta &#124; &#91;&#91; &#91;&#91;%c2%a1]] &#91;&#91;%c2%bf]] &#91;&#91; %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 01:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You asked why the discussion is longer then the actual article. That is because the article is constantly undergoing change, including removal of content – while the changes are continually discussed here. I have now archived the old discussions. --Ezeu 21:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why no section for Criticism with the various criticisms of "bushisms" with Bush's verbal flubs compared to previous Presidents, and the additional (excessive?) attention paid to them for political purposes?

Eugene Volokh's webpage has myriad links criticising Weisberg's column, for instance.

66.245.144.38 04:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)No User.

Some more bushisms
They went like this:

"We must help with the democratization of Afganistan,Iraq and other African countries"

"The problem is that,if you are paying attention,that,if Saddam still would have been in power,if he would have been the President of the US,the world would have been a lot better."

"Wow,Brazil is big!"(after looking at the map of Brazil)Dimts 09:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources please. And NOT Comedy Central of anything. The Person Who Is Strange 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition...
I find Bushisms as funny as the next dissident, but should this article belong in Wiktionary and not so much on Wikipedia? After all, it is more or less just a definition of Bushism..67.142.130.40 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)JSTo

Explanations of Bushisms
I've reinstated the explanations of the various Bushisms that ILike2BeAnonymous removed two months ago with the summary: "Other famous Bushisms - Remove 'helpful' explanations which really are not needed, tend to ruin the jokes and dumb down this section. These quotes stand on their own." I was awarded a barnstar by another user for the original addition. His reasoning was: "It would not have occurred to me (or anyone else, apparently!) to put these explanations in, but not only do they help non-native speakers, they also make the entry more encyclopedic." My original thought was the non-native speakers, but I agree with his addition, which is included in the current HTML comment of the section: "The explanations add encyclopedic content to a section that is otherwise pure humor (Wikipedia Is Not a joke book). They're also helpful for non-English speakers. Please do not delete them without discussion on the talk page." Also note that halfway between deletion and restoration, a comment was added to this talk page asking a question that is answered by the very descriptions ILike2BeAnonymous thought were "not needed[...]and dumb down this section. These quotes stand on their own."

I assume that ILike2BeAnonymous thought his edit would improve the article, but disagree with him for the above reasons. Please don't remove the explanations again without good reasoning and discussion.

--FunnyMan 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, ILike2BeAnonymous has removed (2nd revert) the explanations once again. Despite this notice, a HTML comment in the section, and a note on his talk page pointing to this notice, he did not notify me in any way over the next hour.  I restored (2nd revert) them.  I asked him to discuss in my edit summary, and am about to add a similar message to his user page. --FunnyMan 02:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I still say what you've done, despite your good intentions, amounts to a dumbing down of the article. Almost, but not quite, in the same category as the car sunscreen with the printed warning "REMOVE BEFORE DRIVING". Do we really need to provide explanations and crutches to all readers? Maybe a large-print edition? A 3rd grade version for the kiddies? Versions for retarded readers? Where's the assumption of the least amount of intelligence on the part of a reader?
 * So far as assisting non-English readers, I think that too is not an especially good idea. Just think of what that would entail if it were undertaken in earnest across the board here; it would be an impenetrable forest of explanations and meta-explanations. You've got to draw the line somewhere; after all, this is the English Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't go to the DE Wikipedia and complain if I didn't get some nuance in an article there.
 * Also, regarding that comment that you pointed out as support for your explanations: to me, all it means is that that particular Bushism (about "imports from overseas") isn't really funny nor an indication of stupidity. G.W. Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but not everything that comes out of his mouth is stupid. +ILike2BeAnonymous 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, good, I'm glad to see you're willing to talk. As the explanation says, it should have been goods, not imports.  While it may be true that we're getting increasing amounts of imports from overseas (as opposed to from the Americas), it's doubtful that Bush was referring to that.
 * Regarding the humor value, Wikipedia Is Not a joke book. Our job isn't to be funny, it's to explain.
 * In case you haven't noticed, English is the most common second language on the planet. This is an article about a particular facet of the English language and culture, and therefore of interest to non-native English speakers.  Why wouldn't we cater to them?  For that matter, some native English speakers may not understand a particular Bushism either.
 * While you might not complain about not being able to understand DE, you will note that Quantum mechanics isn't written for professionals, but for people who don't understand it. There's nothing wrong with assuming that the readers don't understand something, as those who do are free to skip past the explanation.
 * --FunnyMan 02:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but regarding that last item, there's a heck of a long ways between an article on quantum mechanics&mdash;which I totally agree shouldn't be aimed at specialists (in fact, that's my complaint about much of the scientific content here, which is written in the worst sort of jargon and clearly intended for a specialist audience, the hell with the layperson)&mdash;and an article such as this one, dealing with fairly low-level manglings of language that most people "get" without the need for an explanation. I find the interspersed explanations irritating: am I alone in this?
 * Regarding your penultimate point: in that case, they're as hopeless as Bush himself, and probably beyond help (or haven't reached a certain age, in which case I invoke the "we don't do the 3rd grade here" rule). +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with ILike2BeAnonymous. I also find some articles on WP (particularly those relating to phonetics and linguistics, interests of mine) utterly incomprehensible to a layperson, but this article does not suffer from that problem.  I believe it's next to impossible to "skip past" the explanations, given the distracting way you've interspersed them.  It was a bold idea, but I feel it unnecessarily clutters the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Explanations of Bushisms - Request for comment
Since I'm about to sign off for the evening (and may forget to return) I'm going to lay this in the hands of the community by putting it on Requests_for_comment/Language_and_linguistics.

The issue is a set of explanations of the Bushisms listed in the article, which were created by me. I (and Septegram, who awarded me a barnstar for them) believe that these explanations add encyclopedic content to the article, in addition to clarifying them for non-native English speakers who may visit the article. ILike2BeAnonymous and, recently, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back believe that the explanations are not useful and clutter the article (ILike2BeAnonymous's exact wording was "dumb down"). What do others think?

--FunnyMan 03:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the onus now appears to be on you to demonstrate that the intersperesed comments are useful and should stay, I'm going to remove them for now. Don't worry; they'll be held in escrow there in the wiki-memory banks should they be deemed desirable. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And lest I appear churlish, let me say that you do deserve credit for "being bold", as another editor pointed out. How can you know if something will work if you don't try it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your narrative is a commentary/explanation/analysis of the bushism. My opinion is that Funnyman's commentary may violate Wiki does not publish original thought. Specifically: "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, ideas, statements, and neologisms; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources."

Also check out Original Research: "Material counts as original research if it: introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea; introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article" Jonawiki 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

W, not HW
AFAIK, "Bushism" is a term that came about during the term of George W Bush, not his father. The mention of the latter should be deleted from the intro. Tempshill 08:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Done, but someone'll probably put "Poppy" back in there. +ILike2BeAnonymous 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the same, so I asked about it on the person who put HW there. He directed me to the fifth reference listed in the further reading section.  Note the 1992 publication date.  Bushisms/President George Herbert Walker Bush in His Own Words New Republic. Workman Pub Co., May1992, ISBN 1-56305-318-7 Robert K S 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, with all due respect to you, just because someone says something applies to someone doesn't necessarily make it so. I'm dubious about the source, for one, but so far as I know, the commonly accepted sense of this term only applies to the son, not to the father. Maybe you can dig up some better references? +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "Bushism" was invented to pertain to the Father and then BORROWED to apply to the son. Its first use was in 1992.  It was used as the title of a Book.  The Book can be seen here.  Notice that it is about the Father, not the son and predates any other source of the term.  Per wikipedia standards, articles should be complete.  This article is not complete unless it recognizes that both the father and the son had speech patterns and phrases that were described as "Bushisms".  --Blue Tie 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you even look at the book you propose as a source? It in no way supports your assertion: it's an autobiography, so the term "Bushism" is used by GHW Bush in a completely different sense there (and certainly not a derogatory one as in this article). +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I own this book. It is not an autobiography.  It is a compilation of quotes from GHW Bush.  It does not describe his life at all, so it is not a biography and it was not written by GHW Bush so it cannot be an autobiography.  And in its opening chapter, it contains an essay about what a Bushism is and why Bush (the father) uses or creates them. --Blue Tie 23:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is this article only discusses the term Bushism as it is used today--to refer to quotes by the younger Bush. What I've done in a recent edit is include a reference stating that the term was once applied to H.W. but that this article's focus will be George W. Bush-isms.  I hope this is an agreeable solution for all.

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It maybe that the article is incomplete. But you cannot just proclaim that something in 2007 refers to Jr.  You must cite a reliable and credible source that says so, and it must not be disputed in any particularly important way.  Instead of your fix, the article should be expanded to include the information on the Sr.  This article highlights a problem with wikipedia:  it is heavily influenced by people who are focused on today's culture and today's headlines.  But that is not an appropriate limitation for an encyclopedia. --Blue Tie 10:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems there are good points on both sides of this thread. Here are some interesting questions that may be applicable.  Why has the article not already been developed with a GHW Bushisms section?  If the GHW Bushisms content were to be spun off into its own article, would it be notable enough to survive an AfD? Robert K S 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) I suppose it has not already included GHWB references (yet) for a few reasons. 1). I have not yet had the time -- I am traveling constantly and my sources are at home; 2). GHWB is not in power and thus less interesting to discuss or malign (and after all, this is mostly a maligning term); 3). Wikipedia is edited chiefly by young people, many who have a stronger knowledge or interest in current popular culture and focus on what can be found on the internet than serious research into articles. (Evidence: you almost never see newspaper articles cited that are more than about 3 years old, unless they are readily and freely available on the web through a google search. In essence, if it isn't found in Google, it does not exist.)  One thing though, per wikipedia rules we cannot simply proclaim that the term refers primarily to the son.  We must cite something else (verifiable, reliable) that says so, particularly in comparison to father.

The term really has a long genesis. Originally, Reagan's policies were branded by his opponents as "Reaganism". It was generally used in a negative way, though the Reagan whitehouse aides sometimes turned it around and appropriated it in a positive way. Sometimes (very rarely), the things that Reagan would say would also be called "Reaganism(s)". But these were almost always quips or assertions that displayed his confidence and power. When he left office, GHWB was generally seen as a variation or an extension of the Reagan Presidency. But, where Reagan was the Great Communicator, Bush Sr, stumbled and said silly things, which became "Bushims". So it was originally almost a direct comparison of the communication skills that Reagan had vs the communication inneptitude Bush displayed. In Sr's day, the term was exclusively his and, really, much more prominent in the regular press than it currently is for his son. Since his son came out, the term has been borrowed, reinvigorated or reinstanted or something and applied to him.

My "crusade" as someone called it is considered peculiar. I don't think so. The problem is that this is a "contemporary popular culture" thing. In less than three years, the son will then be as irrelevant as the father is now and the term for both men will fall into equal disfavor. There is no cottage industry or return on investment in casting aspersions toward people not in power, and Jr is currently in power, but not much longer. However, the article will remain in place for years and years, though with less and less attention. In the interest of a valid and strong encyclopedia, I say do not get all excited about the latest faddish trend and stick with things that will have long-term value. In that respect, I'm not sure this article has ANY value, but if it does, it should be complete (and thus less biased, though giving a term that is used to malign someone such attention is, inherently the strong interest of ax grinders). --Blue Tie 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As an outsider, I agree that references can be provided for both presidents. It cannot be denied, however, that the term became most well-known during the presidency of GWB. I've added references for both to the introduction, but included that the word is ",currently, mainly" used for GWB . Hopefully this compromise is acceptable to all parties, if not, I would like to ask everyone to discuss the matter here before starting to revert each other again. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I greatly appreciate the effort to find some compromise. However, I do not agree that the term became most well-known during the presidency of GWB.  Of course, my saying this and your saying what you said, are both Original Research.  But my original research informs my opinion of this and I happen to have a memory of both instances, the recent and the former. I also think that "currently, mainly" is really awful English! I would suggest something like this instead:  A Bushism is any of a number of peculiar words, phrases, pronunciations, semantic or linguistic errors that have occurred in the public speaking first of United States Presidents George H. W. Bush more recently by his son George W. Bush.  The term (a neologism) has become part of popular folklore and is the basis of a number of websites and published books.

--Blue Tie 03:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the horrible english, i'll change it. When reading all these discussions, I though it would be nice to have section on the history of the word in this article, explaining when and where is was first used and so on. Since you appear to have a good knowledge of that, would it be possible for you to write a paragraph about that? If not, I'll have a try myself, but I am far less familiar with the subject. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your current version is better than your previous and better than my suggestion. I applaud you.  I think you are right, I should write that section.  I at least have the original book.  It contains a detailed essay on what a Bushism is and why Bush sr used them. --Blue Tie 13:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you write a first draft, I'd be happy to help expand and comment. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I scoured my bookshelf for the book this last weekend while I was home for a bit. My wife said it is popular and is being passed around among my children.  So I have to go find it before I can write.  Maybe next weekend.--Blue Tie 19:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

recent revert war over troop quote
Whether or not it technically qualifies as a Bushism, this is a stupid revert war. The man misspeaks on hundreds of occasions and makes enormous gaffes--if the incident is small enough that it's provoking an arguement, then it's most likely an easily droppable example, if only for the reason that there are much stronger examples out there.

IMO, the strongest examples used for this article would fit the following criteria
 * obviously a Bushism
 * funny
 * well sourced--while not all Bushisms or even bad Bushism are written about as "he did it again" the next day, the worst ones and the most high profile ones often are
 * notable (was it a major speech? did he say the exact opposite of what he intended, like kerry's infamous joke?  was there backlash because he offended people? these busmism are more important than ordinary ones)

First, while I do believe it's a bushism, I don't see why it's a great candidate for this article. I don't believe that bushisms must have double sources to stay in the article, and we don't remove unsourced items on site--you can put a fact tag in if something needs a source, especially if removing it becomes a topic of some debate as it did here. That said, unless a case can be made for why this bushism, because I don't find it funny, it isn't well-sourced as a bushism, and it isn't particularly notable--this seems like a weak bushism to include.

And as for the revert war itself--this is petty stuff people. First, discussion shouldn't be conducted in summaries anyway--explain the edit, but discuss here, that's what a talk page is for. And once it's been reverted back more than once--if you haven't come to the talk page yet, come to the talk page and take a break from that particular edit, especially if it isn't urgent. A revert war over a Bushism? C'mon people. Let's avoid this stuff. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of it except for the sourcing issue. We cannot accept direct quotes from speeches in the list of Bushisms, unless they have been referred to as a bushims by a secondary source. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Have we created some special sourcing requirement for this article?  Now granted, this isn't a case likely to happen.  In the world of blogging, most of his gaffes are documented anyway, slow or fast news day, 1st Bushism of the week or fourth of the day, he generally at least gets a blog or two.
 * The word Bushism is clearly defined and we have sources clearly defining it. So, when a Bushism occurs, as defined by one of those sources and society's use of the word in general, we don't need some official to come down from the mountain and proclaim, "a Bushism has occured."  What official would count anyway?  Any blogger?  Anything published on paper?  What would be official enough for this proclation?
 * Bush's speeches are primary sources, and articles and blogs etc. are secondary sources. We can write articles about what happened on TV without needing to cite an article about what happened, because the televsion show itself is the primary source.  If we need some official to proclaim a Bushism a Bushism, then this word is not clearly defined, has not integrated into the English language and shouldn't be an article.
 * However, I believe that this word is clearly defined and integrated into the language, and that as such, this article should meet the same standards as any other article about a word, and not need special sourcing requirments.
 * Btw, I do agree that if a statement as a Bushism is disputed, it needs a source, but if it's disputed, I think we can find a better Bushism anyway. Also, I do think that these Bushisms should have sources defining them as Bushisms--it  makes the article stronger and the example stronger.  And I don't think the issue really will ever come up anyway, but, per my understanding of WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE, Bushisms don't require this additional source. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are so many "Bushisms" that are listed as such and hence can be referenced as such, why would we even want to include other ones, for which such a reference does not exist, if we only include a small list of examples. Lets choose those examples as clear and well-known as possible. That way we circumvent all the issues that will arise from adding "new" bushisms, referenced only by a direct quote to a speech. I do not say we require special sourcing for this article, I just ask that we include as those few examples the ones that are broadly supported by many sources, as being bushisms. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cpt. Morgan has something here. In order to be included in the list, a Bushism ought to have both a primary source cited (to show that the quote was actually Bush's) and a secondary source (to show that someone, somewhere attributed it as a Bushism).  Otherwise, we are bound to get mythical Bushisms as well as perfectly reasonable things said by Bush misunderstood to be Bushisms by editors.  To answer Miss Mondegreen's question, yes, any blogger and any print source would be an acceptable citation for the latter requirement. Robert K S 09:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was my point with my original criteria, and I think I mentioned in my recent edit summary that this was rather silly as the odds of this coming up are really negligable.
 * You'll notice that the first of my four criteria was obviously a Bushism--if Bush talks about building new power pants and all the energy that they'll provide, that's obviously a Bushism. This is the only necessary criteria, and it's possible to have something fit this criteria and not have a 2nd source--possible, not probably.  I really doubt that a notable, funny bushism isn't going to be sourced as such (bloggers live for this stuff), but if that were ever to happen, three out of four criteria is fine for me.  Two out of four in some cases would be too--I just don't think that that would happen, sourcing is probably one of the easier criteria, and it happens to take care of multiple criteria, so yay sourcing.
 * But obvious, is obvious. If Bush is talking nuclear, power pants is a Bushism. If he's trying to lose weight, it's a bizarre catch phrase.  When I said obvious, I meant serious, no consensus it's obvious that he really could have used a tape-delay kind of Bushism.  If there's a dispute, it's not obvious, or it's vandalism.  Either way, this is pointless because the odds of something we want being unsourced is so small. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't think this article should exist. It's a wee bit... politically charged. It's not really encyclopedic either. Wikipedia is not some source of humor. If you want humor try Comedy Central. The Person Who Is Strange 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HW quote addition?
I also think we should add a section for HW's bushisms. We could use this as a good starting source. Btw, that site also has a great bushisms quiz where you can see if you can tell poppy's bushisms from dubya's. Miss Mondegreen | Talk  09:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but given the recent referencing issue, I suggest we follow the same way for referencing them as the quote for GWB, meaning both a reference for it being a a bushism and for the quote itself. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, they obviously need to be referenced as quotes, but there's a whole collection of quotes that can basically be googled. It requires someone picking good ones from the page, googling them, getting the source for it being a quote and creating a section.  I'll be out of town and therefore out of internet access for a week, but if it's not done by the time I'm back I'll do it.  I just think that that's a great collection to google from.  And we can use that page as a source for them being Herbert Walker bushisms, and add additional references, like the book, etc.  And at some point down the line polish the section--like look for individual bushism references for individual quotes--better referenced, articles that talk about the impact of the quote hopefully.  But working from that site can get us a section set up which I think is a great starting point.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find my book. One of my kids borrowed it.  When I find it I will add more about sr.--Blue Tie 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Other Bushisms" must be deleted
This is following the above discussion "recent revert war over troop quote" and comments made by User:Miss Mondegreen.

Blogs are widely not acceptable sources on Wikipedia, or for any encyclopedia for their sake, as all editors here should know.


 * Verifiability : Self-published sources (online and paper) : Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. (...) Self-published sources, such as blogs, should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP.


 * Reliable sources : Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.


 * WP:BLP : Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

At least the subsection "Other Bushisms" ought to be deleted per WP policies. Right now, we have primary sources for the existence of the quotes themselves (which is fine so far) and partisan blogs/magazines/stuff to support that they actually are "Bushisms" (not fine).

As for the remainder of this intensely partisan article, can it be explained how a quote from Bush can "encyclopedically" become commonly known as a "Bushism"? Is it only by being mentioned by a liberal blog or book as such? Are there reliable unPOVed sources that are commonly known to define what is a Bushism and what is not? --Childhood&#39;s End 13:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been deleted before and its come back. An article about Bushisms obviously needs to list a few of them. The problem is the list grows and starts to include dubious additions until someone deletes them all, and then the cycle repeats. Just leave them there and keep the list down to the "classic" bushisms. --MarsRover 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a verifiable, notable and non-partisan source that can help us define what is a "classic" bushism? --Childhood&#39;s End 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We are unlikely to have the International Symposium on Bushisms to give us the formal definition. But the description at the top of the article is fairly good. And by "classic" I mean it been around for a while and with a minimal amount of people disagreeing its a bushism. (ex. the "troop" bushism may be a bushism but its not a classic bushism). --MarsRover 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fairly good" is true only within a certain POV context aint it? As you somewhat said, we are unlikely to have a non-partisan reliable source that can help us define what is a bushism and what is not. Please read again the WP policies I have cited above. Do you have any reason to believe that they do not apply here? --Childhood&#39;s End 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Childhoodsend, do you consider NPR partisan? Robert K S 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont know about it... is it notable? I'll check for the partisan issue. --Childhood&#39;s End 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the WP policies. Seems like your main complaint is the use of "blogs" as references for which I agree. But I don't see blogs being used as references here. "Slate.com" isn't a blog. The "book on bushisms" is not a self-published work. Can you explain what wrong with the current references? --MarsRover 03:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Other Bushisms"?
First, I'm going to argue a policy point with you. The web has evolved. Anyone can be a self-published whatever, but there is a difference between using a middle-school students blog, and a NYTimes reporter's blog. The NYTimes puts stuff online that doesn't always see print or a later version sees print and newspapers and magazines etc. are using the web as a way to produce more material.

That aside, I know these policies well, but I don't see how our article violates them. In re partisan sources, The Washington Post? Time? Telegraph? Slate? PBS?

This article has a NPOV--it isn't about Bush, either Bush, and really focuses on the particularities of what a Bushism is. It should more so, and it should have better or more sources. We should have more on the evolution of the phrase and more on the specifics of the meaning, and more on the types of Bushism, in addition to a section for HW Bushisms. And having looked at the sources, I see some that I'd like to replace with better sources. This article certainly needs work--it's a good start class article, it's not yet a GA article IMO.

But we have verified, non partisan sources. And not every source will reflect Bush (either) in a good light, or be non-partisan (I certainly can't speak about the authors' political leanings), but it doesn't matter. The articles or authors may not be neutral about Bush, but they don't have to be. This is an article about Bushism, and for the majority of the sourcing, we are simply looking for an article about whatever gaffe the President or the former President made, so we have a source not only for a quote, but a source for it as a gaffe, as a Bushism. An article about the Bushism shows that the Bushism itself is notable--not every one is written about, and we're going to look for ones that hopefully discuss the impact of the Bushism (if there was one), etc.

"''Fairly good' is true only within a certain POV context aint it? As you somewhat said, we are unlikely to have a non-partisan reliable source that can help us define what is a bushism and what is not.'"

Actually, all that MarsRover said was that we were unlikely to have "the International Symposium on Bushisms to give us the formal definition". You seem to be the one making this about partisanship, when it really, really isn't. Look at the sources and external links--I'll admit that not all of them are good sources, but there are a lot of very good, non-partisan sources. Btw, Bush and Gore went on SNL for the 2000 election and they both mocked themselves--Gore mocked his stiffness and the whole lockbox thing, and Bush mocked some of his more infamous Bushisms, and, I believe he used the word "Strategery" as well, which is of course not his own Bushism.

I'd replace some of our sources--they aren't all good. But the arguement that we don't have any sources that meet WP policies just doesn't wash--and the arguement that this is somehow a partisan word also doesn't wash.

I'll add the sections I was talking about as soon as I get back in town (I can't do much until then), and I'll fix the "ehh" references then.

Other than this being a start-class article that needs work, I don't see what the issue is. Could you clarify now that I've hopefully responded to some of your points? Miss Mondegreen | Talk  10:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unreliable negative material about living persons cannot wait to be "fixed" as you seem to imply. Please read Citing sources: Biographies of living persons should be sourced with particular care, for legal and ethical reasons. All negative material about living persons must be sourced to a reliable source. Do not wait for another editor to request a source. If you find unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article.
 * The "Other Bushisms" section is almost entirely sourced with a single Slate Magazine article for what regards the "Bushism" stuff. While it is true that the NY Times web edition can be used as a source (notability and editorial oversight are obvious), Slate is i- partisan (openly admitted liberal editorial stance) and ii- web-only. Please read again WP:BLP : Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject.
 * To sum up, you do have primary sources to attribute the quotes to Bush. But that's good only to show that he actually said that, not that it is a "Bushism" or a gaffe or something else. All you have to show that they are "Bushisms" is partisan, questionable sources. That is not enough and it should be deleted while the Bushism stuff becomes notable enough to go beyond the boundaries of liberal or Bush-hating circles. I'll then be glad to support it. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Several comments:
 * this article isn't a biography, so several of your arguments are not on point.
 * using partisan sources should be used with care, but can be used if not derogratory. (if this is one of your arguments what part of the material is derogratory?).
 * If you think "bushisms" are not notable and inheritly POV, you should be working the "nominate for deletion" angle. If there is agreement that they are notable, we should then just figure out the criteria needed to reference them. I think the current criteria is good but how can it be improved?
 * --MarsRover 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the above... WP:BLP says "This applies whether the material is in a biography or any other article". Please let's pay attention.
 * I dont think Bushisms are notable, but I can nonetheless help to figure out a criteria to reference them if you can find something in this regard that can respect WP's policies. Right now, Bushisms are referenced according to a Slate article... --Childhood&#39;s End 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * ... so what's wrong with that? Slate is a respected source last I checked, not a blog. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Slate has an openly partisan editorial stance. They cannot make it clearer to you that what they say about Bush is not NPOV. Before you can put such things about a living person (or anything else for reason's sake) in an encyclopedia, you need to be able to find it either in i- notable neutral source(s), or ii- in various notable sources that more or less cover the POV spectrum. Right now, all you have is an openly anti-Bush source (whose notability is questionable). If any idea has not breached the boundaries of anti-Bush/Democrat/liberal circles, it may be because it is not notable beyond these boundaries and is thus inherently POVed. I'm no Bush fan (being a libertarian) but I do want this encyclopedia to be kept away from the status of a vanity magazine or of some political pamphlet.
 * Please read again WP:Notability : In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Slate is a respected online magazine. Slate has it's own correspondants etc... it isn't a self-published whatever.  Also, I dont' know how it's done--I don't know if Slate co-produces some things with NPR or what, but Slate pieces regularly air on NPR.
 * I think you misunderstood my point. I've read WP:BLP fairly carefully, and I didn't see any major violations in this article.  I did see sources that I didn't think were great, sources that I'd like to change for better ones, but they were not of immediate concern.  Let me explain:
 * We have multiple sources defining Bushisms--I think that there are better ones, I think that sources we have define Bushism narrowly, but we have multiple sources for our definition of what a Bushism is.
 * Every quote has a source for it being a quote.
 * This is technically, IMO, all we need. We have sourced the definition for Bushism, and we have sourced the quotes as quotes.  Unless there is real controversy about whether ticket counters flying is a Bushism, per our definition, per our sources, then we don't need to cite a source showing that a particular quote is a Bushism.  Some things are in fact obvious.  I think we should have sources here, and I think that they should provide something other than comfort that a quote is in fact a Bushism, but I don't think it's necessary.  We state that x=Bushism.  We source that.  We have quotes that are sourced, quotes that obviously fit the equation we have previously stated and sourced.  Unless there is controversy--why is it necessary?
 * We go beyond having what we need--we do have sources showing that these quotes are Bushisms. Some are perfect.  Some are great.  Some are good.  And some are ok.  I didn't see anything truely terrible.
 * I am getting on a plane. I won't have internet access.  Duke it out, do what you will, and when I get back in town, I'll work on the article.  That's the best I can do.  However, I see nothing urgent (and I don't see you in any hurry to replace sources), so I'm not going to rush around looking for internet access when I'm out of town.  If the source isn't good enough--get another source--it's not like we don't have our pick of them.  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1- I explained above why Slate alone isnt good enough as a source for an encyclopedia (WP:Notability). It is the only source you have for most of the quotes to pretend that they actually are "Bushisms".
 * 2- What you call "multiple sources" that define what a Bushism is are two references to the political humour section of the About.com webzine, one reference to Boloji.com (?), and another to a 1992 book. As you say, you could have better sources...
 * 3- Indeed, you have a source to show that every quote is a quote. That's good only to show that what's there has actually been said, but does not help to show that they are "Bushisms".
 * 4- You thus imply that all you need technically is a definition of what a Bushism is and a series of quotes. Then it is up to you or to Slate to determine if these quotes do match the definition of Bushism or not.
 * I find this at least far-stretched, and considering that we are discussing an article about a living person who is the perfect subject of most political debates, what should raise the standard rather than lowering it, I think that the quotes section ought to be deleted until this concept of Bushism is known and usable beyond a certain partisan ground. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You must have said "partisan" about dozen times now but the part of the article you want to get rid of it the only part that is unquestionably true (He did say the statements). There's a sentence about some shmo's psycho-analysis about why he talks that way thats is dubious. Yet you want to get rid of the actual quotes because the references to the classification of the quote was using a "1992 book". What year did they start writing books we can use? --MarsRover 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Status of decider quote
I thought it was agreed (see archive of talk page) that Bush's "I'm the decider" quote is not a Bushism since it is correct English? Why is it back? nadav 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nuked it. We'll see how long it stays out. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the faults of Wikipedia: common errors and myths can have a longer shelf life than the truth. nadav 23:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think part of the problem is that we need to rewrite the description of what a Bushism is. The description used to be,
 * "'a word, phrase, or other grammatical configuration unique to the style of President George W. Bush while speaking publicly and usually extemporaneously.'"
 * Which doesn't work not only because it applies only to W only, but ours needs work to. The problem is that a Bushism doesn't need to be an outright error--a mixed metaphor isn't an outright error, and yet so many Bushisms are mixed metaphors.  Bushisms have an intangable quality to them--no, not everything that comes out of either Bush's mouth is a Bushism.  The best way I can define a Bushism personally is that a Bushism is something that is said, by Bush the father or Bush the son that was not intended to come out that way, and coming out that way is noticable indeed--so noticable that more attention is paid to how the words came out incorrectly that what happened that day in the world or the rest of what the President said.
 * Btw, I am of the opinion that the decider quote is a Bushism. Decider is a word in the dictionary and the sentence is technically correct, but it wasn't a commonly used word.  Bush's use of the word decider injected it back into the English language, the way that his Bushisms have injected neoligisms into the English language.  In addition to the fact that Bush received "The Decider" as a nickname, the phrase "the decider" now carries a conatation that it didn't have before--a political one, a humorous one.
 * The way the decider is both mockingly and lovingly said by his opponents and supporters is the same way strategery is said. The only source I have for it being a Bushism is the world around me, and obviously we'd need something that could be cited, but I think we should look for a widder definition of what a Bushism is that has strong sources.
 * At the moment, this article treats Bushisms as mistakes, and most of them are. But Bushisms are more than that, and there are a section of Bushisms that are looked upon fondly by some people and we need to cover those. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant about rehashing this issue too much. Yet I do want to make one point.  I gather you are a well-read person who was already familiar with the word before Bush's usage (see this list of quotes containing the word).  Now, clear your mind of W. and instead imagine hearing a respectable former president at a press conference.  After being repeatedly pressed to respond to criticisms of his Defense Secretary, he resolutely declares: "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for William Cohen to remain as the secretary of defense."  I am hinting here of course that people who dislike Bush may sometimes be quick to fault his speech even when it is correct (or even eloquent if spoken by someone else) because it gives them more fodder for making fun of him.  This should not be carried to point where even a simple "hello" starts to appear on the Bushism list. (I am exaggerating: the real risk, rather, is that any utterance that is ideologically disagreable will instead be lazily dismissed as just another "Bushism")  In any case, we can all agree that there is no dearth of perfectly legitimate classic Bushisms for us to list here instead. nadav 10:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Decider" is clearly a Bushism in the sound bite sense described by Miss Mondegreen above. A search of NPR shows it to have been used daily in an intro of political catchphrases along with Lloyd Bentsen's "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" and the Dean scream. Robert K S 11:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are claiming then that a Bushism is to be defined merely as any Bush catch phrase? If you're right then what's the point of all the linguistic analysis on this page? We can just replace the article with a section of wikiquotes and be done with it. The sole reason Bushism got its own article in the first place was because it was a singular phenomenon that could be precisely defined.  If we now expand the definition to include everything Bush says then that will defeat the purpose. nadav 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. "Smoke 'em out of their holes", "Mission Accomplished", and "Bring 'em on" are all Bush catchphrases but none is the slightest bit peculiar in its phrasing, so none is a Bushism.  There were discussions on all the major news outlets in the days following Bush's "decider" quote; lexicographers were consulted; some said it wasn't a word, some said it was.  Some dictionaries listed it, some didn't.  Whatever the case, Miss Mondegreen's analysis above covers that aspect succinctly, and I can add nothing she hasn't already said. Robert K S 18:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Miss Mondegreen's definition applies to "decider" quote. She defines bushism as something "that was not intended to come out that way, and coming out that way is noticable indeed". But why do you think he did't intend to say what he did in this case? It's not wrong grammaticaly and it conveys what he wanted to convey: that despite people's objections to rumsfeld and their saying that he should be fired, Bush is the one who decides the matter, and he wants rumsfeld to stay. There is nothing innately wrong with the sentence. It may display Bush's arrogant stubborness, but not by mistake. Please tell me who these lexicographers are.  And did you look at the long list of reputable sources who use the word (I linked to it above)? nadav 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * nadav, thanks for your reply. About the only way we can progress in this discussion is if you first take a look at some of the press the quote received in the days following and realize that when you say "It's not wrong grammaticaly ... There is nothing innately wrong with the sentence" you may be introducing your own POV.  In fact, the word is used seldom enough that many people did think it was strange, and there was a tremendous and instant perception that Bush was coining a new word, prompting the soundbite's domination of the airwaves for the rest of the week.  Even if, in fact, the word was not new, strictly speaking, its re-introduction into the English lexicon by Bush lent it a whole new meaning, and thereafter any reference to a "decider" prompts a connotation with Bush's use of the term.  I believe I am only repeating Miss Mondegreen here.  (Incidentally, the word's French counterpart, décideur, is common, and refers to business decision-makers: CEOs, CFOs, and the like.  There is even a strategy/finance/law magazine here in Paris called Décideurs.  Several of the quotes on your list seem like they may have French sources or could have been written by French writers, and this leads me to wonder if the word as used in those quotes isn't actually a clumsy direct translation of the French word.)  Cheers!  Robert K S 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I very much want to look at this press. I don't have access to databases anymore. Is there anything online you can direct me to? I am puzzled how given the sources I quote that use the word, any lexicographer could question Bush's use. Only two of the quotes relate to French or France (and the Economist is thoroughly edited and hardly French); I can assure you that many many more quotes can be produced. And how do you account for listing in new American dictionaries

such as World Encarta? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nadav1 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Concern about Characteristics/definition
The Characteristics section has been with the article for a long time, and seems to cover the range of Bushism phenomena very well. However I am concerned that there is no attribution to a secondary source for this compendium of Bushism properties. This has a slight whiff of WP:SYN. More crucially, I am concerned that there is no quoted source for the precise definition of Bushism. Even though it may be well-known, there really should be a definition from a secondary source. Note that there may be disagreement among sources; for example, Jacob Weisberg of Slate defines it quite generally: "a comment doesn't have to be flubbed or ungrammatical to qualify as a 'Bushism.' From the beginning, I've included in these anthologies statements by the president that while indisputably correct in terms of sentence structure and noun-verb agreement are nonetheless amusing or terrifying, depending on your perspective, because of what they reveal about the inner man. (To the top of the heap in this edition: 'I trust God speaks through me.') In such cases, the concern is that the president may in fact have said precisely what he did mean." (Intro. to George W. Bushisms V: New Ways to Harm Our Country ) Does anyone here have a precisely stated definition taken from an ouside, reliable source? It would be a great addition to the article. nadav 08:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me more and more obvious that without the Slate magazine stuff, there would not be an article about "Bushism" on Wikipedia... I agree with you that right now, it is WP:SYN. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think Wikipedia should definitely have a Bushism article, and there is a huge library of Bushism books out there. The problem is that as of now, none of the analysis is attributed to any of them. I know there must be sources that go into more depth than just listing quotes.  Does anyone with access to them care to cite their definitions/analysis? nadav 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

reply to: The Person Who Is Strange
Hey. A couple quick things first. Please remember to sign your posts in the future using four tildes ( ~ ). Second, if it's been a while on a talk page since a discussion has been active, it's generally a good idea to start a new section by clicking the plus button next to the "edit this page" button at the top of the page. You can still reply to comments earlier on the page, and refer to them and link to them and quote them, but it makes it easier to notice that you've commented and find your comments, and it keeps discussion linear. I had to use page diffs to figure out what you'd said and that made life a little complicated.

Now, about what you actually said:

"'Sources please. And NOT Comedy Central of anything.'"

The article is dairly well-sourced if you look carefully, and there aren't any sources from Comedy Central unless someone's added something while I was out of town. The issue at hand is more sources for what acurately defines a bushism. But the quotes themselves, and the context that they were said in are very well sourced. That's not at all at issue here.

"'Frankly, I don't think this article should exist. It's a wee bit... politically charged. It's not really encyclopedic either. Wikipedia is not some source of humor. If you want humor try Comedy Central.'"

I'm not sure why you think this article is politically charged, perhaps you could explain. The term is used both in a politically charged manner, often meanly, but it's also used in a friendly manner, and that's something that the article should expand upon. This article should, for example include some of the information about the Bush camp adapting the term "strategery".

Whether the term is politically charged or not, and whether it's funny or not isn't the point. The term is a part of the American vernacular, and it's well documented in multiple articles and books which makes it notable. We don't bypass our policies on inclusion because the issue at hand is politically charged or because the issue at hand is funny. Encylopedia's cover a wide range of topics, including funny ones and politically charged ones. Notability and verifiablity are our inclusion criteria and this article fits those two with ease.

What is an issue is if the article itself makes fun, or attempts to be funny, or takes a political standpoint, and I believe that it's presenting the information at hand neutrally. That does not mean that I think it's a good article. I think that it's a start class article--the bones are there, and the bones are sourced, but this article needs a lot more sources and a lot more information to really be a good article. Considering this includes information about a living person, and that it's a delicate topic, I'd make it a somewhat high priority to get this article to be at least a B class article.

Does that answer your concerns? If not, please expand upon them. Miss Mondegreen | talk 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Miss Mondegreen, I must say that every one of your posts could easily be published in the Wall Street Journal. Compliments on your insightfulness. Also, I want to express a note of sadness that the article has not progressed in quality for a while. nadav 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's an incredible compliment.  I would like to say, to anyone currently following this article or who comes here in the future: if you don't think the article is good enough: sofixit.
 * That's not to say I won't get around to this eventually. This is on my todo list and I recognize that I'm in a different and better position than most wikpedia editors and researchers in that I have access to LexisNexis and the NYTimes archives and JSTOR and the OED online, etc.
 * But while some articles need that access, and while some articles, even with that access require me to go into the real world and look up things in libraries and books and on microfilm, this is not one of those articles.
 * This is like the current version of the Serra Springs (California) article which I recently wrote after a 3 line stub was created that I was unhappy with.  There's not a single source there that isn't acessible to anyone online.  It took me almost four hours of actually working and researching, but I was able to write a well-sourced article.  Anyone else could have done that--all they needed was the basic information that was already on the California Historical Landmark page.
 * The same thing could be done with this article. It would take time, energy and more thought than just typing "bushism" into google.  And if no one does it, I will.  But, quite frankly, articles where I am one of the only Wikipedians who can contribute rank higher on my todo list.  I will leave the house to go to libraries first.  I will do research for articles that require my access to particular databases first.  And considering that I have a limited time to work on wikipedia, this falls on the backburner for me--even more so when my time is taken up by people who really have issues with the quality of this article, but aren't willing to invest the time and energy to fix it. This article is not of some burning importance to me--it's fairly well written and it has a NPOV, and while it could and should be better, there are other things that come first in my list of priorities.  If this comes first in yours--do the work, don't yell at everyone else.


 * On a seperate note--is there a wikiproject that this should be affiliated with? That might do some good.  Miss Mondegreen   talk   16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikiprojects relevant may include WikiProject Regional English dialects, WikiProject U.S. Presidents, and WikiProject Languages. Also, I think you are overestimating the ease with which the article can be expanded.  I myself have sacrificed a lot of time for Internet lookup, and have only found sites listing quotes or newspaper articles that touch the surface of the concept. I have not found good sources that go into the linguistics or any analysis of the matter.  I am sure, though, that one of the gazillion books on this (DVDs now as well) has more. nadav 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Maybe WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics also. nadav 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush
It seems that the term currently Bushism refers only to George W. Bush. The article itself refers only to George W. Bush quotes. The references to George H. W. are at least 15 years old, so I think any relationship to George H. W. Bush in the article should be made as past tense. --However whatever 15:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It refers to the father to--we just don't have a section for that yet. Miss Mondegreen  talk  00:55, May 10 2007
 * The term was orginaly used for the father. That should be made clear. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaffe with Queen Elizabeth
The BBC has called it "Bushism". However whatever 22:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't think so; article doesn't mention the word "Bushism" at all, and had only this to say about that utterance:
 * President George W Bush may have been reminded of that look when, on the south lawn of the White House on Monday, he fluffed his lines and suggested that the 81-year-old Queen has been on the throne since the 18th century.
 * So it's still up in the air whether this one really rates as one or not. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed it as well as your rewrite of the first paragraph. I suspect that you came up with the year 2001 in re his presidency, but please, WP:NOR or assumptions.  Btw, the term started to be used for him well before his presidency--he held office as governor for a number of years first, and the word Bushism was used to apply to him both then, and when he was campaigning to become President.  Either way, in order to add a year, which is unnecessary anyway, you'd need a source.
 * Even if this does count, it doesn't belong in the section you put it in. Does he regularly mess up dates?  Find proof of that, and hopefully and article that talks about that, and then find an examle that illustrates that better than this.  This is a nice anecdote, because of the winking and everything else, but it's not different--lots of people screw up dates, and lots even don't know how to act in front of royalty.  Bushisms don't include everything stupid or silly done by the President, and even if we use a broad definition and say that they do, we wouldn't use those as examples.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  07:49, May 11 2007
 * Very well said. Robert K S 11:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote from article
 * The Queen has witnessed far worse faux-pas over the 55 years of her reign to bat an eyelid at a mere Bush-ism.

--However whatever 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay--but does this make "dates that are off by centuries" a "common characteristic", a category of Bushism? Is the gaffe a good enough example to bear mention on this page? Robert K S 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it has already been agreed that this article should not be a catalog of every instance or example. I do not think it belongs. --Blue Tie 13:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is proving this article as a joke, yet again. The guy speaks millions of words per week in public, barely slips on a mere single one ("seventeen" instead of "nineteen seventy") and we are already arguing over whether this is worth of encyclopedic mention or not. This is just a sad page discrediting other reasonable Democrats. "Never hate your ennemies. It affects your judgment." (The Godfather, Part III) --Childhood&#39;s End 13:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)  [restarting indent]  Childhood's end--you are the only person to make this discussion political, and many of us who are watching the article are working very hard to keep this article from becomming political. The fact of the matter is, is that the President, whomever the President may be is watched very closely. I think of a few other gaffes by normally very well spoken Presidents that are famous. They are notable, and therefore, by Wikipedia's standards, encyclopedic. Now, this article is meant to explain a word in the English language. It is a linguistics article, though there are political overtones, on both sides of the aisle. All of that should be discussed and it's a failing of the article that it isn't. Now, a lot of people don't understand what qualifies for inclusion in an article, and this happens in lots of articles that are either lists, or have self-contained lists within them. People assume that anything that fits the criteria should go on the list--that's why there are listcruft tags--it's a highly common problem. The issue at hand is that for something to go on the list, it has to fit every parameter of the list, and as the list is a selection, a series of examples, the item should either be the best possible that could be used to explain something, or it should be notable in and of itself. This is unusual--normally, only the topic of an article must fit Wikipedia's notability standards, and non-notable information is necessary in the article to explain the topic and give background information. Not so on most lists. The discussion we had, and the explanation of why something didn't belong in the article had little to do with the item itself, with Bushism, and nothing to do with politics. It had everything to do with how lists and articles in general are created and maintained on Wikipedia. You're seeing demons where they're aren't any, your complaints are rarely on topic, and it's very tiring to be defending even mundane "no list-cruft" edits. Please, attempt to improve the article through discussion or work. Complaining (not on topic) about run-of-the-mill list cleaning doesn't help anyone, least of all you and your case. Miss Mondegreen talk  04:46, May 12 2007


 * Miss Mondegreen, you do not speak for all. I think that Childhood's end's comments (excepting his last sentence) were spot on while your lecturing seems entirely inappropriate and verging on personal attack.  The real issue here is notabililty.  That someone trips over a word and then corrects, should not be in an encyclopedia.  People make mistakes all the time in talking. Moreover (and since your brought it up) this article is not really a "list", though it contains lists.  But articles that contain lists do not need and should not list every event.  I am surprised at the cruft that people want to put in wikipedia.  I am in agreement that this is one example that should not be in here. --Blue Tie 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? Miss Mondegreen isn't suggesting that it should. She has explicitly said the opposite.  She was addressing Childhoodsend's repeated, unwarranted categorization of this article as purely politically motivated, which, IMHO, is nonsense. Robert K S 16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not speak for all? I never said or implied I did...I simply said that Childhood's end was the only person making this political--and as I have evidenced, he is the only one who has.
 * Childhood's end seems incapable of reading wikipedia's notability criteria. He has raised this topic here again, and again, and again, and again.  Raising it yet again, using the removal of listcruft (and someone fighting for their listcruft) to prove that this article was either not notable or political or whatever, just continues to ignore basic Wikipedia stuff, yet again and, it's starting to get on my nerves.
 * Wikipedia's notability standards are fairly simple and this article fits them. Remember--it's not what you think of as notable, but what the rest of the world thinks, and this topic is of interest both linguistically, and politcally, even if the article doesn't do a great job of covering the issues it needs to (there's a reason I'd rate it a start class article).
 * Lecutring someone for using listcruft in order to complain about the notablity of an article, when the person has been pointed to wikipedia's notability guidelines again and again and when the person isn't going to improve the article or attempt to raise an Afd or even an Rfc is quite appropriate and nowhere near a personal attack. Quite frankly, I waste enormous amounts of time answering comments and accusations like this every time anyone makes minor changes to the article or raises a question on this talk page. Really, it's enough already. Can't the next person just read the version of this that happened a week ago?
 * Either improve the article, ignore the guidelines and the comments here and put this up for an Afd that won't pass, or complain elsewhere. There's no point to saying something just because it makes you feel better--communication is supposed to accomplish something. Endless complaining from you and everyone else who either doesn't agree with the notability guidelines or disagrees with the rest of us who firmly believes that this fits doesn't do anything.  Either put this up for an Afd, or rest your case, and then either work on something else or this.  But complaining because you don't like it is both pointless and a waste of my time. Miss Mondegreen  talk  16:58, May 12 2007


 * This is really starting to look like personal attack. You are apparently upset.  I do not mind if Childhood brings up his notability objections forever.  He has them.  Such things are determined by discussion and he is seeking to discuss them.  I happen to think the article meets some minimal level of notability.  He does not.  It is entirely right for him to try to persuade me otherwise if he feels that way.  Perhaps he hopes that Consensus can change.  Or maybe he does not expect that but wants his objections heard.  Whatever.  Lecturing him on this is inappropriate.  Going on for long posts to lecture him is even worse.  If you do not want to discuss things (or let others discuss them), wikipedia may not be the right place for you to edit.


 * How about we get back to the article and stop commenting on the behavior of other editors?--Blue Tie 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong--I'm annoyed, not upset. And I do mind if Childhood's end comments every time a minor edit is made to the article as if the minor edit changes things.  The minor edit does not change the makeup of the editors working on this or the article itself, and Childhood's end refuses to bring up specific issues--he points to generic problems, but doesn't site points and won't work on the article.  What he's doing is complaining, not actually trying to improve or change the article, and I would welcome real discussion.  Unfortunately that hasn't happened, and instead I and other editors continue to receive complaints and accusations of political bias.  Telling him to stop complaining and accusing is is perfectly acceptable, and doesn't constitute a person attack--shockingly enough, it's acceptable to comment on someone's behavoir, on their actions, as you are doing to me, without it being a personal attack.  Otherwise, no one would ever be warned or blocked or anything--it would be a personal attack.  And, I can even be upset or annoyed or whatever by their actions--people often are by vandalism, as long as that doesn't affect what I do, and it didn't. My annoyance has actually lessened over time, because I've grown to expect this.
 * Discussion is always ok--as long as it's discussion. Childhood's end came to this article attacking and accusing everyone of being biased.  And when he's not, he's not discussing, he's complaining.  This article is like a bomb.  Childhood's end doesn't raise discussion or work, or ask about issues if no one touches it, but as soon as anyone does anything and it pops up on his watchlist, the whole thing starts all over again.  That's not productive, it's not discussion and it's not ok.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  17:43, May 12 2007


 * Ok, you are annoyed. But you are feeding the problem.  Suppose that annoys me?  Should I attack you?  It could all be handled much more simply by asking: "What edits do you think would help?".  That gets out of personality and back to the article. If you do not like his answers, you can say why.  As for me... I'm done talking about this problem.--Blue Tie 18:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I already said that my emotions weren't affecting this. And I haven't been attacking him or you--if you think I have, please provide quotes, because unlike you saying that I was angry, or that I was getting personal, or childhood's end's various political accusations, I haven't gotten personal--correct me if I'm wrong.  And, I have asked Childhood's end time and time again to ask him to point out what he thought was problematic or what he thought would help, and he hasn't.  Neither have you btw--you first comment was about a general article issue which you haven't elaborated on except to confusingly reverse your position on notability (maybe?) and your only specific comment in this long discussion on discussion has been to make a suggestion that's already been tried more than once.
 * If you have an issue with the discussion or the article, raise it, but please, do so specifically, without attacking others, and please, read the recent comments and talk page a little so that you aren't suggesting something that was done in a conversation you participated in. Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:07, May 13 2007
 * Well, you said your emotions were affecting this... you were "annoyed". I also think you did attack before and are doing so again.  But As I said, I am done talking about that problem.  So, I am going to move on.
 * With regard to my edits on the article, I am not clear about what you felt my first comment said or where I reversed on notability. Here is my first comment on this page and it has been followed up by a number of related edits -- with more to come. I need to find a book that I own, but I am hardly ever home and it seems to have been borrowed by one of my family and now I have to hunt it down when I get home next week.  Otherwise I would have already added more to the article on the topic I addressed. --Blue Tie 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not buying your salad, sorry. I can see how a list of "species of tigers living in Southeast Asia" can be built - you read the science books and build the list accordingly. In this instance, your list is built upon partisan magazines reading primary sources and determining that this or this is a "Bushism". What we should have is a stub explaining what a Bushism is commonly understood to be, with links to notable papers discussing "Bushism", period. This would be linguistics, not a Bush-hating playground with a funny poem and some cherry-picked quotes taken out of context with the intent of ridiculing the person. --Childhood&#39;s End 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And now a comment about content. So now you're arguing syn?  Well, that's another reason for removing the example--we can't use or, and we've kept away from it.  The articles we've used specifically make mention of items as a bushism, you'll notice that was one the things raised in the discussion above.  This article should cover the this from linguistic, political and pop culture aspects, because it has become notable, by WPs definition in those areas.  Look, if you see something in the article you have issue with (aside from the fact that you dislike all of the sources), please, raise it specifically.  But generally attacking the article saying that it fails on such and such grounds without even pointing out where is really ridiculous.  I say "no it doesn't" and then it becomes a yes-no argument--I'm not, I can't go through every possible instance in the article and demonstrate how it doesn't fail.  If it is a failure on every ground, finding a few places to point to as examples shouldn't be a problem.
 * Now, about the political issue. THIS is not a politcal issue except where it's made one.  First, the article doesn't even cover the political aspect of it yet.  Fill that in why don't you if it's so important.  Fill in where the Democrats use Bushism, where the Republicans used strategery--fill it in.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  17:43, May 12 2007
 * I dont see why I would argue with you. You are in total denial of the problems this article has and you like to lecture on things we know already. I've said many times that all the sources herein are partisan; magazines and such selling their issues by making fun out of otherwise irrelevant bad pronunciations/word order because they know that many political opponents of GWB like to read what they think proves GWB is not intelligent. You think something can be notable despite it is only discussed in partisan sources, and I say this is impossible. WP:Notability thinks as I do ("In order to have a neutral article, a topic should be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors") but this article survives as it is right now because Wikipedia has a liberal bias . I can live with it and I dont expect to change things here - just making my opinion heard, as Blue Tie puts it... Hope you dont mind too much. --Childhood&#39;s End 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What isn't a liberal bias to you? Let's be plain, the BBC refered to Bush's error as a Bushism--it just doesn't belong on that list and it's not a great example.  And when "I'm the commander guy" gets so much attention that the White House has to correct itself and the media by saying that they've gone over the transcript and Bush said "I'm a commander guy" meaning, he's someone who listens to the commanders, then it's notable.  Yes, this is political in some aspects, and the article should address to what extent both sides use this issue, because, let's be honest, both Democrats and Republicans do.  And yes, this has a pop culture aspect as well that should be covered.  But you aren't putting any of the information about that in there, and whining about Wikipedia's liberal bias isn't going to do anything, SO FIX IT:


 * "Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).   Miss Mondegreen  talk  22:28, May 13 2007"


 * The fact that the BBC referred to the Queen "gaffe" as a "Bushism" shows two things:
 * 1- The concept of "Bushism" exists in popular culture and deserves at least a stub
 * 2- What is a Busism and what is not is left to anyone's imagination/bias/judgment/whatever and no list of "Bushisms" can be built according to encyclopedic standards
 * Take your commander guy story... where did you take it was a "Bushism"? In the White House press release? Obviously not. I'll suggest again : remove the dumb poem, remove the list, keep what a Bushism is (as best as it can be defined) and add links to sources discussing it. Now you'll have an encyclopedic article, not a Bush-hating playground. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). , except that I don't agree with your assessment that Bushisms are a matter of "imagination/judgment/bias/whatever".  If what constitutes a Bushism can be defined, then an example of it should be in theory producible from the record, and there is no reason why this article shouldn't present a few often-cited examples of Bushisms as useful illustrations.  I tend to agree with you that reference to the poem is superfluous.  I also agree that any example should be citable as a Bushism, and that anything added to a list of "common characteristics" should also be citable (i.e., no one should be able to "make up" a new category by pairing a couple of Bushisms, per WP:NOR).  I disagree that this article could be called a "Bush-hating playground". Robert K S 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My assessment? Bushisms have been defined in multiple books and articles, and considering that it's a word that has been encorporated into the language, and that I do listed to the news, and read papers, I have a general understanding of how it is used--I have not prescribed a meaning to the word, and the word is defined in the article (sourced) and I write that part of this article.  In fact, I've barely touched the article.  I would suggest taking a look at some of the articles that focus more on what a Bushism is, and the differences between father and son, and that focus on the linguistic aspects more if you feel that that part of the article needs reworking.  Also, a list of examples is par for the course in linguistic articles.
 * And the poem you'll find is mentioned in many articles on Bushisms---it is pop-culture and I certainly wouldn't write a stub on it myself, but it fits the grounds for notability--given the number of outside sources that it's covered in, a short article could easily be written for it.  I wouldn't suggest it, but given the notability grounds, it shouldn't be removed from the article.
 * What this article really needs is the sections of information that it's just plain missing to help give it balance. The sections that it contains are balanced, as sections, but overall, the article suffers for a lack of information.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  09:12, May 15 2007

(reset indent) Do you even consider the criticisms made against this article?
 * "Bushisms have been defined in multiple books and articles" - I dont know how many times I said that the problem here is that the "books and articles" you refer to are exclusively partisan sources and that this is in violation of WP:Notability
 * "Also, a list of examples is par for the course in linguistic articles" - I dont know how many times I said that the problem here is that what is a Bushism example and what is not is almost up in the air
 * "And the poem you'll find is mentioned in many articles on Bushisms" - this speaks for itself... Not mentioning that if can you find a non-partisan using this peom seriously, I'll revisit my position and cheer for yours.
 * "What this article really needs is the sections of information that it's just plain missing to help give it balance. (...) but overall, the article suffers for a lack of information." - And so much for WP:BLP.

Perhaps, only perhaps, will you find some interest in this Spinsanity article : "As critics such as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh have shown, that's the problem with Slate's series of "Bushisms (...). Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, has highlighted plenty of grammatical errors by the President, some of which are humorous or noteworthy. However, the series has also frequently taken the President's words out of context to make reasonable statements seem nonsensical, grammatically incorrect or even offensive. (...) There's nothing inherently wrong with making fun of the candidates, but even while engaging in satire, political journalists still have a responsibility to not mislead their audience. (...) These examples demonstrate that the magazine's efforts to mock Bush and Kerry for their supposed verbal missteps has led Slate to take quotes so far out of context as to essentially engage in outright dishonesty. Weisberg and Saletan seem so eager to find quotes that fit their established storylines that they don't pay enough attention to whether the examples are actually valid. Given Slate's prestige and influence, these columns matter. Even more disturbingly, in the introduction to the new "Bushisms" book, Weisberg takes his collected quotes as evidence of the President doesn't know much and doesn't care to learn. "Bush may look like a well-meaning dolt," the Slate editor writes. "On consideration, he's something far more dangerous: a dedicated fool."

No matter how notable this article is, I think it explains very reasonably why a list of Bushisms belongs in a magazine but not in an encyclopedia. This also points out very clearly that this Bushism affair is more about politics than linguistics, that it can be reasonably associated with Bush-hating, and that it can be injurious towards a living person, what a magazine or vanity book can perhaps afford, but not an encyclopedia. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To me, it just proves that your quote should be incorporated into the article. That's the usual Wikipedia solution whenever there are notable opposing viewpoints. nadav 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Commander Guy
I added in a reference regarding the White House claiming he said "a commander guy" rather then "the commander guy." I thought it would be fair to acknowledge that there have been numerous other sources that state he said that later. --Pinkkeith 14:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is diskembobulated
This article does not once mention the word diskembobulated, which George bush likes to use. 124.197.50.143 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Cite, pleeze? +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Google shows no hits for the word diskembobulated. --However whatever 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course not; where'd you come up with that insane spelling? "Discombobulated" gets me more than 300,000 hits. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not insane! He only ever said it! HOW AM I MEANT TO KNOW HOW IT'S SPELLED?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.50.143 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2007

OK, I found a reference where Bush uses the word "discombobulated", but it appears that he is using the word correctly, although it is impossible to tell what he really meant when he said it. See the "disassemble" bushism in the article. It would not have been Bushism if he were not to define what he meant, which revealed that he really meant "dissemble". --However whatever 14:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a Bushism
I don't feel like this quote really fits with the scheme of the "bushisms"

"I don't need to remind you who al-Qaeda is. Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens."

Its not perfect English by any means, but it seems to be more about the content which people find funny... maybe I am just missing the point of it. I assume what is amusing that WE are the bunch causing havoc in Iraq, but it seems pretty obvious that he was saying that al queda was causing problems in Iraq... which may not be correct or whatever, but I dont see any real structure errors here... P337 07:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another example that a "list of Bushisms" should not be attempted here. You may be interested in the Spinsanity article I quoted above. Regards. --Childhood&#39;s End 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

My Thoughts on This List
In short, bad definition. In long:

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" This looks more like a slip of the tongue... and does not meet the characteristics defined in the article.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." This may be obvious or funny or whatever, but it is perfect linguistics. (Without researching it) I assume that this is pretty much what he meant to say... probably something about pollution.

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." Again... may be funny, but we assume the man has two hands. This one is kind of iffy because it IS redundant... but its more of a kind of a double-take sentence (if you know what I'm saying by that). I dont feel as though it fits with the characteristics defined in the article.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." As someone with an interest in network security, it is very common that to keep up with ways that other people can harm your network. This is a perfectly obvious sentence. Do we not want our leaders to be thinking about these things?

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." I feel this is the first example of a bushism that kind of actually meets the criteria defined. though i dont feel like it is a very GOOD example.

"Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." This is definitely awkward... and strange... I dont see how it fits any of the characteristics... please explain.

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." Excellent example.

"I don't need to remind you who al-Qaeda is. Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens." I wrote a whole paragraph on this one (above).

"We put in more troops to get to a position where we can be in some other place. The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear—I'm a commander guy." And finally this is not a page of stupid things GWB says. It is supposed to be about bushisms... this has nothing to do with a bushism. Either these need to be removed (or explain to me, because I may very well be confused about what a bushism is) or we need to redefine Bushism as something funny or stupid that GWB says.

I hope I am exhibiting a NPOV, and I want the others that view this page to be aware that I am completely uninterested in both parties... I just stumbled upon this page and was a little disappointed by what seems to be a heavy political bias. I would appreciate a reply from some of the people up there (and new of course). Maybe I should just remove these so people will actually have a discussion. If anyone needs these quotes I'm sure a quick search of "the google" for "funny bush quotes" will return all of them. P337 06:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh; you pretty much said it yourself: stripped of its "encyclopedic" trappings, a Bushism pretty much is "something funny or stupid that GWB says". What did you think it was? Of course, we try to explain why and how it might be funny or stupid; is there something about any of those explanations that you find wanting? +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, being that this is a linguistics article, and the fact that it is supposed to be encyclopedic and not merely a humorous quote page, I assume that all of the example should be "good" examples. I like most of the definition provided under characteristics. And this is what I was using to define a "good" example. It seems like we are trying to have it both ways here. It is either a linguistics article or a bunch of funny quotes by Bush. If there is no style to a bushism, then I dont see how it is a linguistics topic. Admittedly, I am NOT a linguistics expert. It is getting rather late, but I will try to come back later and explain this... but I feel like the definition in the introduction seems to contradict the characteristics section.


 * As I said, I feel like "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." is an excellent example, provided it was in a notable speech, but even if it wasn't it really seems to convey the linguistics of it. While others are really just kind of stupid... or what seems to be more common out of context clips of a speech. Others do too, but the ones I selected and "removed" dont seem to fit this scheme. I would be interested to hear other people's take on this. P337 07:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

-


 * "'A Bushism is any of a number of peculiar words, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, semantic or linguistic errors' (emphasis added)"


 * Semantics n.


 * (linguistics) The science of the meaning of words. Semantics is part of linguistics.
 * The study of the relationship between words and their meanings.'''
 * The individual meanings of words, as opposed to the overall meaning of a passage.

Anything else? Miss Mondegreen talk  21:58, June 3 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your accusation of me not reading the article rather offensive. I honestly am trying to understand this definition for bushism and it seems too vague to really DEFINE anything. No one seems to have anything to say about the specific quotes I brought up. For example, "I don't need to remind you who al-Qaeda is. Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens." Please explain how this has any sort of error in it or a problem with any of the word usage here. If you take this quote literally, there should be no confusion about what he is saying. However, if you go reading in to it with ideas about who you think is causing havoc in Iraq then it changes it. This is not a political thing, I promise, I just feel like these examples don't really fit with what I thought a bushism was. If you feel like it as any quote of his that can be taken as amusing or ironic or whatever, then I think the definition should reflect that.P337 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * al-Qaeda is not a who
 * Al-Qaeda is the group that plotted
 * trained killers to come and kill people
 * bunch that are causing havoc
 * causing havoc? you don't cause havoc.  You can be the cause for the existing havoc, but it's the wrong verb.  Generally wrecking havoc is used.  Causing sounds really odd.
 * the last sentence has a whole bunch of issues. The people currently causing problems are the same people who came and were suicide bombers.  were is a bad  verb there--they were the ones but they aren't any more?  Technically, yes because the suicide bombers died but he's syaing that they are currently doing something so they ARE the same people.  What he intended to say was that the same people currently causing problems in Iraq and that the people who caused 9/11 are one and the same.  Same group, same leaders.


 * I'm not going to go through all of them with you, indentifying the myriad of linguistic errors, and yes, errors of meaning are linguistic too. The man with two hands?  It's still a Bushism.  It's about communication, and people stopped thinking about the brave Iraqi and whatever else he was saying and went "what?"  When the error or odd way of speaking pulls the readers from whatever he is saying--when the turn of phrase shows up as the next days news and not whatever the President was speaking about, it's a Bushism.  And I know that people love to cry about how partisan it is, and I'm not saying that people don't use it to their political advantage, but it's not.  Bush himself awknowledges Bushisms.  He made a crack about Schwarzenegger correcting him or something (it's in the notes for the article), and when he parodied himself on Saturday Nigh Live, I believe he actually used the Bushism that SNL made-up (strategery).


 * There's a whole collection of articles on slips of the tongue and odd speaking styles of Presidents on wikipedia, and it's for a good reason. Presidents are expected to be good communicators, so when they make a high profile error, or when they systematically are less then eloquent, people cringe and attack dogs come out and whole offices work on spinning news cycles.  Sure, it's not very flattering, but that's not our job.  Should the article be expanded to include this other stuff?  Yes.  But no one else has, and I haven't had the time yet and never will if I go over this same arguement again and again every time someone new finds this article and gets offended.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  07:40, June 4 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, "MM", it's "wreaking havoc", not "wrecking havoc"; a common mistake.
 * By the way2: did you know that "havoc" can also be used as a verb, as in "they havocked the village"? I didn't either, but it's true. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I type wrecking? Like the ball?  That's bad.  So much for proofreading.  I'm trying to proofread more on-wiki because I'll look at what I wrote later and it will be littered with apostrophes and random crap--like I forget vowels when I type and I add apostrophes to every word possible so then I have to take them out and if I type to fast my letters get inverted.  It's awful--I feel so uneducated looking at what I've written two seconds ago.  Especially the apostrophe thing--because that really kills me when other people don't know what to do with one, so to just have them, floating about like ballons seems just terrible.
 * You know I have to find some way to use havocked now, don't you? Maybe I can have Cossacks havocking, because that rhymes.  T'would be rather awful though.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  22:53, June 4 2007 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for clearing up that bit about wrecking, I was a little confused by that, but hey we all make mistakes. I have read what you said, and it is interesting the way you rationalized keeping that particular quote. First, this whole issue about wreaking havoc seems like quite a stretch to me, since to wreak means (loosely) to cause... no confusion there.

The part about his use of who doesn't seem like a problem to me. Its like saying, "I don't need to remind you who the World Wildlife Foundation is, They are the..." In both cases they are groups and groups can use that 'who' it seems.

Now about this plot/planned/killer part. I will admit that I didnt notice the "killers to come kill" thing. Now about the tenses not matching up, I am not going to try and defend any of that, like I said I know it wasn't perfect English. but I thought it took a little more than that to become a Bushism. If that is the case then why are there two other sentences here?

As for "bunch that is/are" I would argue that is is the correct verb. it is just one "bunch" after all. Like the wolves are hunting vs the pack (of wolves) is hunting. (I am not a big English/grammar person though... I guess I shouldn't admit that on a linguistics article... lol)

And finally, I disagree with you on this last part as well. I feel like he used 'were' because 9/11 happened in the past... he WAS saying that the "bunch" causing problems now caused problems in the past. I'm not sure how else to argue this one.. we may just have to agree to disagree... unless of course you can explain that more to me.

Now, if the reason that quote is a bushism is because of those, in my opinion, rather nit-picky issues you pointed out, then that is fine. (However, I don't see why we need two sentences on both sides, because context isn't necessary.) But, correct me if I am wrong but I thought the reason it was "funny" was because WE were the ones causing problems in Iraq. This may be my own bias or whatever, but that is what I thought when I read it. As far as the "hand-shaking" quote goes, I feel like this disconnect is completely the audiences fault... He wants to express that he is proud to shake his hand... how else would he say that? "I am proud to shake the remaining hand...."? I am not sure on the way he said it but he could have emphasized in his voice that he was proud to be shaking this man's hand, BECAUSE he may not have been able to had Saddam gotten to him again.. That is all speculation though... I just feel like any disconnect there is comparable (boy, this is an odd comparison) to some physicist leaving some audience members in a "huh?" state because he didn't go into enough detail for them. He assumed his audience knew he was shaking his remaining hand (as opposed to the missing hand.) The audience should have been able to get over any confusion they had, right away... but really there was no confusion... it was just that it is "funny" to hear someone say that. I feel like I am kind of alone here... but I am really only talking to you.. I just wish there were some more opinions. I agree with you that there should be an article about this president's sometimes embarrassing speaking errors, but I just felt like there were some quotes in here that obfuscated what the definition was supposed to be. P337 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying about the before and after sentence. It's the whole phrase that's a Bushism, though I suppose smaller parts of the phrase could be called Bushisms as well, but the whole phrase is a Bushism, and we generally give something for context anyway.
 * About the last sentence: he's having tense issue because he loses his antecedent. He means for his antecedent to be "al-Qaeda", but his antecedent is "killers".
 * "The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq"--incorrect, and informal, we'll get to the incorrect part in a second, the informal bit also lends to being a Bushism.
 * "were the ones"--here's where it really goes south.
 * "Bunch"--he's referring to al-Qaeda.
 * "were the ones" he's referring to "killers"
 * A bunch was, or is, or will be.
 * Killers were, or are, or will be.
 * Bunch is singular. Killers is plural.
 * He switches his antecedent mid-sentence which sounds weird for two reasons:
 * One, he goes from is to were, which just grates the ear and
 * two, he uses the ealiest thing mentioned for an antecedent, which is incorrect. :**Both of his nouns, "al-Qaeda" and "killers", can be a bunch, so it should be the last one he mentione by name--"killers".  It's not.  He uses the ealier noun and then the latter noun, and both antecedents are incorrect.


 * Anyway, this has nothing to do with politics. You may think a sentence is incorrect or stupid or policitically whatever, but that doesn't make it a Bushism.  It's fractured language or meaning that makes it a Bushism.  Let's look at your other examples:


 * "'Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country.'"
 * If you can't see that there is something seriously wrong with this sentence, then I can't help you. OB/GYNs do not practice love with women--OB/GYNs are doctors--if they are practicing love on their patients--they should definitely be sued.  Unfortunately, Bush was speaking about too many doctors getting sued--"We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business. "  Not only is this Bushism a MAJOR error of semantics, but in context it's simply abysmal.  It's not only a ridiculously well-known Bushism, but it's just ridiculously well known in general.  It's even made it's way into other pop-culture things.  It's on some TV list of the 50 or 100 stupidest things ever--VH1 or MTV or something like that.  Ranked pretty high too if I remember correctly.


 * '"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?"
 * "you said: 'This looks more like a slip of the tongue... and does not meet the characteristics defined in the article.'"
 * Bushisms are slips of the tongue--you're not arguing that they're made on purpose are you? How does this not meet the characteristics defined in the article?


 * The human being and the fish. You don't know what he was saying, but you assume.  There's an article with references including a link to the speech the President said it in so you can see the context.  Don't assume, make three clicks and spend 2 minutes and look.  It's not as if it takes any real effort--someone's already done the work for you.  That particular Bushism by the way--well, we don't have the original speech it was made in as a reference.  We have a speech Bush made at a correspondants dinner where he made fun of his own Bushisms.  He quoted himself as saying that .  That Bushism is, according to the speech in a book of Bushisms and according to his speech, Bush agrees it's a Bushism.  The concept of Bushisms is partisan again, how?


 * I'll reply below in re where I think this article should go. Miss Mondegreen  talk  08:42, June 6 2007 (UTC)